1) Mother and baby form a very strong bond (google 'Primal Health' for the science on this).2) Father dominates mother through patriarchical sociopolitical culture.3) Baby grows up empathising with the dominated mother he/she loves so deeply; feeling all that hurt and suffering, and can't see the sociopolitical climate changing for the better in the future.4) The now grown and adult offspring doesn't see creating another version of their suffering mother (via a heterosexual relationship in an unchangeable patriarchical system) as a viable or productive option.5) Adult offspring embrace gayness instead.

Not that this theory can go for either sex, as heterosexual relationships often require a gender conformity in social situations, and sociopolitical climates in workplaces, etc., often require a certain gender character type in order to operate smoothly.

So maybe gayness has always been around because patriarchical society has always been around?

Doesn't seem like an argument against what I amn saying, but thanks for the effort.

Of course there will be those men with weaker bonds with their mother, and who have an idea as to how future patriarchy will weaken, or are just sucked in to the world of patriarchy through the intoxication of it all ('meat heads' would probably account for a lot of these kinds of people), and there will be their female counterparts; competing with mothers, optimists, and 'hoes' intoxicated with whatever they can get their hands on.

Xanthos wrote:Doesn't seem like an argument against what I amn saying, but thanks for the effort.

smoki's response sounds valid to me. why should your theory disregard children who discover a preference for homosexuality in the absence of being raised in a patriarchal environment? raised by a single mother, for example, or by heterosexual parents with a matriarchal dominance.

I'd like to hear what observations and other thoughts have lead you up to proposing this theory. Your theory sounds value laden (based on a particular individual's viewpoint). The absence of a patriarchal figure might also correlate with a higher probability of guys being gay (at least this is the traditional fear of some families who value patriarchy).

It sounds very similar in subject matter to Freud's et al theories about the Oedipus Complex and Hamlet.

smoki's response sounds valid to me. why should your theory disregard children who discover a preference for homosexuality in the absence of being raised in a patriarchal environment?

Can a child ever be raised outside of a patriarchal environment? In the countryside, maybe, but if it is to make contact with any community before it is aware of it's sexual orientation, then it will likely realise the social status quo between the genders.

raised by a single mother, for example, or by heterosexual parents with a matriarchal dominance.

In the case of a single mother, the question will arise why the father is not around, and if the prevailing climate is one of dominant males prescribing women as weak and troublesome in a heterosexual context, with no obvious or effective available way of correcting this perception, the child would likely take on those ideas.

I would argue that a matriarchal dominance in a heterosexual domestic setting would be undermined by the patriarchal climate surrounding couples and family structures in general. Even though a mother can seem more dominant in the family than a father, it can be recognised that the patriarchy present in society always gives the father the possibility of having "the last word". A mother can feel very strong knowing she has the support of the father, but if that support is taken away, such a mother can be seen to be a 'paper tiger' - men can earn more money and respect, and so have the potential to provide more.

Women can project themselves as strong and dominating in a patriarchal environment as they want, but they will never be able to access the patriarchal power zone - they are actually playing the patriarch's game by behaving in this 'strong' way - the men will always win. 'Strong' mothers are emulating the patriarchal characters they have seen become successful in society, and yet there can be strength in accepting 'soft' or 'weak' sides to our existence. It seems this takes a deeper awareness and wisdom than we tend to come across nowadays, however, and yet it can be possible. 'Emo' philosophy appears to tap in to this somewhat, but it often tends to have an aggressive emotional blackmail side, and so falls down on that front.

It is known that a mother's compassion often extends beyond her own off-spring; to those of other mothers' - it is in this trait that it appears a woman has sociopolitical power, and once harnessed, can be used to gather support. If aggression comes in to the equation, however, then the approach is undermined, because it requires 'compassion for all' to be at it's foundation. This is why I said it is more difficult for women to harness their inherent social advantages than men - they've got to be more spiritually aware, and this requires true teachers and practices to be allowed in our midst. The patriarchs will clock on to that very quickly, and ensure such spiritually inclined people are not allowed to stick around for long! Heh - an answer to why there is such spiritual poverty in our societies nowadays - there is no longer anywhere for spiritual masters to hide while the patriarchs guard their power.

For your theory, it would probably be interesting to observe homosexuality in matriarchal societies.

Unfortunately it does not seem a true matriarchal society has ever existed in human history. It seems that a true matriarchal society would in fact be a society where genders view themselves as equals. The dynamics between male and female have never been truly balanced on a conceptual level. Men can't give birth and form such a deep existential bond with a baby - that twists the conceptual 'equality' between genders right from the beginning.

Though. I don't believe there'd be much difference.

Possibly not - the theory's more about heterosexuality in a climate where one gender dominates, rather than patriarchy per se.

The absence of a patriarchal figure might also correlate with a higher probability of guys being gay (at least this is the traditional fear of some families who value patriarchy).

It seems there is too much evidence to the contrary for this to be true. Plenty of gay people have very patriarchal fathers present.

I'd like to hear what observations and other thoughts have lead you up to proposing this theory. Your theory sounds value laden (based on a particular individual's viewpoint).

The core of the theory revolves around the deep bond formed between a baby and mother; something which has been argued by others to form the baby's primary understanding of love's depths - the largest potential for compassion and altruism we hold towards other people. This idea is 'championed' by Dr. Michel Odent and his 'Primal Health' research project in London. What Odent proopses is in line with much of what Eastern Spirituality talks about - the pre-natal condition, motherly omcpassion (Kuan Yin Boddhisatva), etc.

From here I am just extrapolating what I see as natural, logical, psychological reactions to the world that a developing adult sees around them. If you are thinking there are any aspects of our sociopolitical environment I have misjudged or have negated, then please do bring them up, as others have already. I have no homophobic or sociopolitical agenda here - I was a believer in genetic homosexuality (something not proven) before this theory occurred to me. I just didn't think this could be ignored.

Nothing I've ever come across. I've had a look before and there was nothing one could properly call a matriarchal society. If you know of a source then please quote it for us.

Anyway, if we can't perform an comparative investigation (patriarchal vs non-patriarchal), there's really no way to prove you are correct.

We can't currently prove whether current theories on magnetism or electricity are correct either, but they prove useful in the practical domain.

There doesn't seem to be anything countering my theory - which means it's off to a good start; it's also very simple and kind of obvious in a way. It's just that patriarchy doesn't tend to be questioned that much it seems, so the knock-on effects which inevitably emerge in all social domains are not really considered.

I'm not sure why all this should put patriarchy to the question. Promoting homosexuality is - as far as I'm concerned - nothing of a bad thing. (It leaves more girls for the rest of us !)

The main thing I'd blame patriarchy for is that it neglects the talent of half the population.

We can't currently prove whether current theories on magnetism or electricity are correct either, but they prove useful in the practical domain.

I resent that.There's quite a gap between the empirical, scientifically correct description of an measurable physical phenomenon (shown to be correct all the way to the quantum level !) and what you are claiming here - without the necessary repeated measurements, lab tests or otherwise to back it up.

smoki wrote:Promoting homosexuality is - as far as I'm concerned - nothing of a bad thing. (It leaves more girls for the rest of us !)

X wrote:I have no homophobic or sociopolitical agenda here - I was a believer in genetic homosexuality (something not proven) before this theory occurred to me. I just didn't think this could be ignored.

xanthos, it sounds like you're talking about patriarchy and matriarchy in terms of what is archetypally masculine or archetypally feminine. in an archetypal sense, as you may know, masculinity represents aggression, ego, control, and by extension, logic and science. femininity on the other hand represents passivity, surrender, and by extension, emotionality and spirituality.

so what you are suggesting, assuming i understand you correctly, is that the dominance of one gender over another is what precipitates homosexuality. in an archetypal context this describes a masculine culture, even with matriarchal figures in control (to reiterate what you also said, but from a different angle).

so. if "patriarchy" as defined in this sense is the cause of homosexuality, why is heterosexuality more prevalent? it would be more sensible to me to theorize that patriarchy precipitates heterosexuality.

furthermore, if matriarchal societies in the sense you describe have indeed existed throughout history, they are not likely to have been recorded because they were not ego-centric. they did not proselytize their culture and were probably easily conquered by warfaring cultures. in an egalitarian environment such as defined by your use of the term "matriarchy", i would expect homosexuality to be *more* prevalent. would you agree?

I'm not sure why all this should put patriarchy to the question. Promoting homosexuality is - as far as I'm concerned - nothing of a bad thing. (It leaves more girls for the rest of us !)

I don't think patriarchy can be weighed up on the surfacing of homosexuality alone...

There's quite a gap between the empirical, scientifically correct description of an measurable physical phenomenon (shown to be correct all the way to the quantum level !) and what you are claiming here - without the necessary repeated measurements, lab tests or otherwise to back it up.

Well; it depends what you use to measure the phenomenon - if you use a knife to measure a cucumber, you get a load of individual pieces, and if you use your stomach then you get a whole load of mush. It's the same with the cartesian grids we impose on our environment - they are more like the knife approach. The cartesian grid is something imposed on top of what is really there, and this imposition skews the results. Grids imposed on reality are a theory, and your "measurable physical phenomeon" are all based on this theory. It's all theories at the end of the day - and yet some theories give us results that we deem as practical.

xanthos, it sounds like you're talking about patriarchy and matriarchy in terms of what is archetypally masculine or archetypally feminine.

I am using the biologically-rooted behaviours of the male and female sex in order illustrate the patriarchal and possible matriarchal worlds. Men are physically stronger than women, and this sets the scene for men to be able to dominate the physical world akin to alpha male gorillas and chimps. Of course, if we look a bit deeper in to our humanity - what separates us from gorillas and chimps, we can see the logic behind bypassing our more animalistic leanings. From this perspective it does seem that behaving like apes with social hierarchies is almost as productive as flapping our arms like birds in an attempt to fly. I don't actually believe that gender has to be an issue at all; it only seems useful, as a sociopolitical division, to those who want to have power over others, and as we know, it's not a perfect world (yet).

so what you are suggesting, assuming i understand you correctly, is that the dominance of one gender over another is what precipitates homosexuality. in an archetypal context this describes a masculine culture, even with matriarchal figures in control (to reiterate what you also said, but from a different angle).

Yes; it seems that true matriarchy would actually not resemble patriarchy at all. When I see all this 'girl power' stuff, I consider it more as a female fantasising about behaving like a power-hungry male (which is not uncommon). When we take in to account the whole 'mothers loving their children unconditionally' phenomenon, then how can such worlds overlap constructively? Are the girls to be given more 'power' than the boys as children? This seems to twist the social situation up even more - that really does sound like a potential disaster in the making.

so. if "patriarchy" as defined in this sense is the cause of homosexuality, why is heterosexuality more prevalent? it would be more sensible to me to theorize that patriarchy precipitates heterosexuality.

As I mentioned before; many (if not most) people will get sucked in to the projected world of patriarchy-based rewards, whether male or female; "Of course there will be those men with weaker bonds with their mother, and who have an idea as to how future patriarchy will weaken, or are just sucked in to the world of patriarchy through the intoxication of it all ('meat heads' would probably account for a lot of these kinds of people), and there will be their female counterparts; competing with mothers, optimists, and 'hoes' intoxicated with whatever they can get their hands on."

One of the factors which emerged form Dr. Michel Odent's 'Primal Health' research was that there has been patriarchal interence in the birth process since ancient times, which has significantly reduced a mother's bond with her baby. When a woman gives birth, she needs to allow her body to do it's thing, and this means detaching somewhat from the more rational, intellectual, analytical processes in the neocortex. She needs to dwell more in the subcortical reptilian brain, as this is where her birthing instincts are rooted.

In extant African tribes, for instance, we find traditions where a woman going in to labour will go out to the wilderness surrounding her village, make a kind of nest for herself, and then give birth alone while kneeling. This kind of approach has proved successful for thousands of years. Now the patriarchal doctors among us would read such a thing with a furrowed brow - "What?! A woman giving birth without a man (or man's authority on the subject) telling her what to do?! Outrageous!". Well, of course he wouldn't say that so explicitly, but that would be the underlying outrage, whether he was aware of it or not. Whether consciously or not, patriarchy has managed to interfere with that which puts women on an equal footing with men from a biological perspective; the bond between mother and child - maternal instinct and loving care. The strength of this maternity affects a woman's relationship with other mothers and their children, of course, which in turn affects society's key social example of altruism.

Now studies have shown that rats and gazelles, which have been anaesthetised when giving birth, do not show any maternal behaviour towards their young. Why? Because it seems that the pain of birth is required in order to release the hormones which induce maternal behaviour. Now couple this with the fact that if a woman's neocortex is engaged by such things as concern over her vulnerablity due to the presence of strangers (possibly seeming not so trustworthy), bright lights in a clinical hospital environment, being told what to do by a male doctor who has never actually gone through the process himself, and being spoken to in an intellectually engaging way in general, then you will see that a woman can often have great difficulty in giving birth in the West, and difficulties will lead to complications, which will lead to anaethetics, and even C-sections... all because no one has sought (until recently) to consider how human beings had been successfully born before hospitals and anaesthetics were introduced. The control, by male authorities in the academic medical world, of womens' birth processes is apparently one of the biggest unspoken crimes humanity has endured. As a man knowing this, and wanting my offspring to pass on their genes successfully (i.e. not be homosexual or dysfunctional if it can be avoided), I want to ensure they are given the best chance to embrace their biological condition as best as possible. This means putting women on an equal footing to men when ever possible; especially where giving birth and raising a family is concerned.

I would seriously advise anyone who has not heard of this before, and is considering having children, to research Michel Odent's work - he has many books available on Amazon, and he was the person who introduced birthing pools back in the 70's. He puts across the theory that humans evolved in a semi-aquatic environment - along the sea shore. Seafood has just the right balance of nutrients to feed our brain optimally, babies can 'swim' as soon as they are born, and they can walk in water before they can do so on land - Homo aquaticus!

furthermore, if matriarchal societies in the sense you describe have indeed existed throughout history, they are not likely to have been recorded because they were not ego-centric. they did not proselytize their culture and were probably easily conquered by warfaring cultures.

Whether not ego-centric, or being easily conquered, we would still expect to see some kind of record. Even the Buddha managed to pass on knowledge of his existence to the modern era. In fact, his message of love and compassion seems to be in line with what I have described as a matriarchal culture above - it goes beyond gender and encourages all to cooperate selflessly - the beginnings of such a thing can be seen when mothers care for each other's children as if they were their own.

If homosexuality is more of a psychosocial than genetic phenomenon, then I would not expect it to surface in a matriarchy as just described; males would feel more comfortable about what those things between their legs meant for their society's happiness and survival. I don't believe, and I don't feel so myself, that behaving like a chimpanzee competing for alpha male status is productive for my species' survival. These days it goes beyond physical size or strength - it just means who gets hold of the gun first - a skinny 12 year old boy in a wheelchair who finds a gun thrown in to his garden can shoot someone like Arnold Shwarzenegger - 'alpha male' does not mean the same thing as a social mechanism for modern humans as it does for chimps or gorillas.

Most of the Asian communities are largely patriarchal, however there is no any large scale homosexuality. Patriarchy or matriarchy may be reason for homosexuality for some, but there is no basis and evidence to generalize it.

Longing to be the opposite can be either due to an over attraction to the opposite or lesser preference for the self or neither.

Most of the Asian communities are largely patriarchal, however there is no any large scale homosexuality.

Thailand?

I would also posit that patriarchal cultures can become so wrapped up in their controlling natures, that the patriarchs attack homosexuality to the degree that it is forced under-ground.

It could be argued that 'underground' homosexual tendencies can be seen embedded within various cultural practices in Asian countries - men holding hands, for example. We don't see that kind of behaviour in cultures which are more relaxed about homosexuality - in the UK, or even Holland.

Patriarchy or matriarchy may be reason for homosexuality for some, but there is no basis and evidence to generalize it.

Well yes there is - that is what this thread is discussing. If you can counter the basis and evidence I provide, then maybe this statement can hold true.

Longing to be the opposite can be either due to an over attraction to the opposite or lesser preference for the self or neither.

Possibly.. and why do you think there would be an "over-attraction to the opposite, or lesser preference for the self" outside of any genetic evidence...?

X wrote:I don't believe, and I don't feel so myself, that behaving like a chimpanzee competing for alpha male status is productive for my species' survival.

that much i would agree with. i think nowadays we're riding the tide of capitalism, fueled by a competitive spirit, possibly straight to our graves as a species. however, given the current circumstances, i certainly would not attribute homosexuality as a threat to our species survival. if anything, i would suggest that its prevalence at all is a luxury which arises from having so many people on the planet. trying to tie it specifically to patriarchy doesn't make sense to me, especially when you don't have any examples of an actual matriarchal culture to compare it to. you might as well say that living causes homosexuality.

X wrote:"Of course there will be those men with weaker bonds with their mother, and who have an idea as to how future patriarchy will weaken, or are just sucked in to the world of patriarchy through the intoxication of it all ('meat heads' would probably account for a lot of these kinds of people), and there will be their female counterparts; competing with mothers, optimists, and 'hoes' intoxicated with whatever they can get their hands on."

sorry, i don't understand what is being expressed by the above-quoted statement. specifically, how does this explain why heterosexuality is more prevalent than homosexuality, if patriarchy causes homosexuality? i'm having trouble following your train of thought. it sounds to me like you're only saying, "of course there will be exceptions". but why? we're not just talking about an exception here, we're talking about the majority of people are heterosexual.

I don't believe, and I don't feel so myself, that behaving like a chimpanzee competing for alpha male status is productive for my species' survival.

...given the current circumstances, i certainly would not attribute homosexuality as a threat to our species survival.

I have not suggested such a thing; I was saying that it seems patriarchy is a threat to our species. Patriarchy can mean a lot more than triggering homosexuality... for example competition based on hierarchical duels stretching economic boundaries to breaking points and beyond, as you inferred.

trying to tie it specifically to patriarchy doesn't make sense to me, especially when you don't have any examples of an actual matriarchal culture to compare it to.

Well, there are clear cut behavioural mechanisms involved - no one doubts the bond between a son and his mother, for example. So how does that son feel when he witnesses his mother's oppression by those who share his gender? Is answering such a question so difficult for people; with or without any relevant academic qualifications?

you might as well say that living causes homosexuality

We all know already that living causes homosexuality - you can't have a gay rock or fire, for example; something must be alive to be gay. In order to find what aspect of being alive causes it, we must drill further, so that it can be understood better. We see so much confusion and phobia regarding someone being gay, that this mystery of homosexuality causes a lot of suffering. My theory is only mentioned to open avenues of thought - I'm not going on some political mission with it. No one has raised any good counter-evidence or processes which undermine my theory yet, so I don't see why homosexuality can't be tied to patriarchy in a rational way...for further investigation when necessary.. .. I'm not making any conclusions here - I've been clear that it is just a theory, and yet theories can be practical for considering potential realities when choices need to be made.

Regarding matriarchal culture, and examples of it, I think we would need to discuss what those examples would be, maybe on a new thread, because I don't think we're all on the same page with that.

sorry, i don't understand what is being expressed by the above-quoted statement. specifically, how does this explain why heterosexuality is more prevalent than homosexuality, if patriarchy causes homosexuality? i'm having trouble following your train of thought. it sounds to me like you're only saying, "of course there will be exceptions". but why? we're not just talking about an exception here, we're talking about the majority of people are heterosexual.

There will be exceptions; which involve the majority, because of the following phenomena which undermine and often sever the mother-child bond (the bond at matriarchy's foundation):

1) Males interfering with the birth process; a) complicating it, and thus; b) causing it to be traumatic for both mother and child, which means; c) medical intervention which reduces the mother-child bond as outlined previously.

2) Off-spring whose bond with their mother has been reduced via no.1 above are sucked in to the advertised rewards of patriarchy - power over women through physical domination, power over men through economic competition, 'alpha female' competitive rewards, and money/resources for women through prostitution. Even if the birth was a good one, and the child's bond with the mother is strong, these tempations can still pull the child away from the mother - such are the famed hungers for, and advertised rewards of; money, sex, and aggressive competition.

A small number of the heterosexuals will also involve:

3) Males dreaming of pleasing their mother through instigating sociopolitical change via new moral views and practices; filtering through from the Ancient East, for example.

4) Females dreaming of those males in no.3 above changing the socioplotical situation to some degree, and encouraging those kinds of changes by producing off-spring with them.

We must not also forget that the more extreme patriarchies (like we see in Taliban communities, etc.), hunt down and persecute homosexuality, and so that would be a reason by itself why heterosexuality is the norm in such climates. Those kinds of patriarchal men become very concerned when 'one of their own' begins to argue from the perspective of 'one of the others'... homosexuals; especially gay men, are famous for siding with feminine concerns.

Societies which heavily persecute homosexuality are often less philosophically developed (or have lost the depth of any developed philosophy they once had), and because there will have been such a time for all societies, then remnants of those views may often remain in even the most liberal of cultures - for example a man being 'soft' (in a gay way) being something bad. This will, of course, be patriarchy's voice speaking; the male ego trying to remain upright. Unfortunately it seems all egos must be vanquished for humanity to continue.

I have provided references to plenty of data which anyone is free to follow up on. Do you have a graph showing you that your 'self' exists?

I said I provided 'evidence', which can be an ephemeral feeling (i.e. "I feel cold, therefore that is evidence that the temperature has likely dropped"), or any other phenomenon which can be verified as true by another person. This is how we agree upon what is real and what is not. Agreeing upon the shape of the full moon on a clear noght can be a scientific process - we provide evidence of what we see and compare it to what others see.

I looked at Primal Health database, looking for the source which says,

One of the factors which emerged form Dr. Michel Odent's 'Primal Health' research was that there has been patriarchal interence in the birth process since ancient times, which has significantly reduced a mother's bond with her baby.

and couldn't find it. Please provide the link. And then please let me know how that makes for more homosexuality. I couldn't find that piece of research either. I only found the ones about pre-natal stress and hormones.

I'm not sure I believe all that anyway. Recent times have seen far less children and (this is a bit of a leap) might, as a result, have much stronger bonds between children and parents than before. We now also have advanced medicine, which keeps mothers and children alive and healthy in many more cases than before. If anything, hormonal imbalance, unhealthy lifestyles and such probably have a much larger influence than the fact that a man is assisting during childbirth. By the way, what makes you think doctors are generally patriarchal men? A great many of them aren't men at all.

I said I provided 'evidence', which can be an ephemeral feeling (i.e. "I feel cold, therefore that is evidence that the temperature has likely dropped"), or any other phenomenon which can be verified as true by another person.

Two things are wrong about this. First: It's very hard to come by good evidence of something. Subjective, non-measurable experience certainly won't do.

Secondly, feeling cold is not a result of a lower temperature. It's a perception of the human body losing heat - which is far more relevant to a warm-blooded organism than the outside temperature. (This is why you feel cold when stepping out of a pool when wet, or why you feel cold when you're in bed with fever.)

i wrote:if anything, i would suggest that its prevalence at all is a luxury which arises from having so many people on the planet.

xanthos, what are your thoughts on the above statement?

the emotional bond between mother and child is not in question.

X wrote:No one has raised any good counter-evidence

i disagree. i also disagree that you've provided good evidence to support your theory. it appears to me that you are drawing causal connections where others are not able to see them. this doesn't mean that you're wrong, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong either.

in order to firmly establish patriarchy as a cause of homosexuality, we need to be able to see that the prevalence of homosexuality is either non-existent or notably reduced in the absense of patriarchy.

i would be interested in addressing the definition of matriarchal culture, as i agree that we're probably not all on the same page with it. a discussion on what causality means might also be useful.

It is not part of a research paper as far as I am aware, it is written about in his book: "The Scientification of Love" - www.amazon.com/Scientificat...ooks&qid=1235976531&sr=8-2 - "Under a deceptively simple and small format, this is perhaps the most sophisticated and far-ranging of all Michel Odent's books until now..[..] One of the main hypotheses in this book,..is that interference with the birth process can be linked historically with a long phase of human evolution in which aggressiveness was adaptive; yet 'homo ecologicus' has everything to gain from a full dose of love hormones at the start of life. As an anthropologist who has witnessed in her lifetime the undisturbed birthing of Amazonian forest people, then the havoc caused by enforced medicalisation and now the conscious but difficult revaluing of native ways, I endorse Michel's argument" - Reviewer: Dr Frangoise Barbira Freedman Affiliated Lecturer in Medical Anthropology, University of Cambridge, UK

I would seriously recommend reading that book - it's a real eye-opener. I don't know why more people haven't heard about all this.. The guy is highly qualified in his field, and it affects every single person. There are some serious ego and identity issues surrounding the whole birth process, though, especially among women - just look up any 'giving birth' video on youtube and check out the bitchy comments that fly back and forth. It's an area one needs to tread carefully around, so I am not so surprised Odent's work is still not properly distributed.

please let me know how that makes for more homosexuality. I couldn't find that piece of research either. I only found the ones about pre-natal stress and hormones.

The homosexuality extrapolation is my creation; using basic sociopolitical behaviours we can all witness in families, coupled with the conclusions made in Dr Odent's work.

If anything, hormonal imbalance, unhealthy lifestyles and such probably have a much larger influence than the fact that a man is assisting during childbirth.

It's not about men assisting during childbirth, it's about patriarchal attitudes towards childbirth - control of the woman's body (i.e. engaging her neocortex, panicking her, telling her what to do, etc.) is the issue. If you cared to look in to it a bit more, you would find out.

By the way, what makes you think doctors are generally patriarchal men? A great many of them aren't men at all.

Patriarchy can be upheld by women as well as men - I have outlined this before. For example, a prostitute can consider it 'girl power' to be charging men for sex. It's kind of fashionable to be sleeping around - one night stands, etc. - anyway (see Sex and the City, et al.); getting some money out of it is a bonus. Prostitution is a gradiented activity, so it is by no means clearly defined. I knew a girl who served behind the bar and showed cleavage on purpose just to get tips... she was married, so what?

As maybe you read on MPG before on the thread dedicated to it - condoned prostitution allows the message to be sent out to society that a woman's body is marketable - it can be rented out. Slavery can't be condoned, but renting out a woman's procreative system can. And before we go down the whole 'Prostitutes choose to do that as a valid career choice' route, it's best to check out the UN statistics which say 80% of prostitutes suffered childhood abuse. Then ask yourself why they have recently brought in the law in the UK that the responsibility regarding 'abuse of a vulnerable adult (i.e. mentally ill and drug-dependent)' lies with the prostitute's client? I'll answer that one for you - most prostitutes are being controlled (i.e. abused and exploited) by male pimps/drug dealers.

So, you see, women can condone the patriarchal world men have instigated - because they often think it benefits them..... until they grow old and wrinkly and become 'invisible', as I've heard one woman put it.

It's very hard to come by good evidence of something. Subjective, non-measurable experience certainly won't do.

When someone uses a ruler to measure something, can you measure the subjective cognition which witnesses that measurement? No? Sorry, then by your thinking, your measurements "certainly won't do"m becasue we can't measure this 'thing' you say which does the measurement You are denying the validity of cognition's (and thus measuring's) existence in your above argument.

feeling cold is not a result of a lower temperature. It's a perception of the human body losing heat - which is far more relevant to a warm-blooded organism than the outside temperature. (This is why you feel cold when stepping out of a pool when wet, or why you feel cold when you're in bed with fever.)

Of course it is the result of a lower temperature - there is a movement of energy from a warmer to a colder medium. The colder medium has a lower temperature. It's no biggy, anyway; this issue you have brought up. My points regarding measuring in general undermine this part of the argument.

if anything, i would suggest that its prevalence at all is a luxury which arises from having so many people on the planet.

xanthos, what are your thoughts on the above statement?

I am assuming you are meaning a luxury to choose? I don't think a high population induces a general complacence in us as a species - anyone who has heard about how quickly something like the SARS virus spread will be all too aware of our fragility as biological organisms.

it appears to me that you are drawing causal connections where others are not able to see them.

I am doing my best to illustrate those connections...

this doesn't mean that you're wrong, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong either.

I am not suggesting that - I am completely open to the genetic homosexuality theory also.

in order to firmly establish patriarchy as a cause of homosexuality, we need to be able to see that the prevalence of homosexuality is either non-existent or notably reduced in the absense of patriarchy.

Well, as stated before; I am not looking to firmly establish the theory; I am merely looking to open it up to consideration. We are aware there is no possibility of proving anything at present. It is merely a possibility - 1 of many, I am sure. When we embark on a journey, it's good to have an idea of what potential routes which may be available to us.

i would be interested in addressing the definition of matriarchal culture, as i agree that we're probably not all on the same page with it.

The homosexuality extrapolation is my creation; using basic sociopolitical behaviours we can all witness in families, coupled with the conclusions made in Dr Odent's work.

Alright. For the sake of the argument: How does stress during birth induce homosexuality? I'm looking for a physiological explanation.

When someone uses a ruler to measure something, can you measure the subjective cognition which witnesses that measurement? No? Sorry, then by your thinking, your measurements "certainly won't do"m becasue we can't measure this 'thing' you say which does the measurement sisyphus You are denying the validity of cognition's (and thus measuring's) existence in your above argument.

Of course I underminde cognition. But I don't underminde measurement - insofar that there is an accurate description of how it is done. Data doesn't lie, but every human that looks at them gives them his own meaning - which could very well be untrue.Human interference and interpretation is always unreliable, which is why a good researcher will try to rule it out as much as possible.

Of course it is the result of a lower temperature - there is a movement of energy from a warmer to a colder medium.

That's the general idea, yes. But surrounding temperature is virtually always colder than your 37°C - yet the sensation of 'cold' is dependant on more things than only the temperature (the person who experiences it, to begin with). Experience of cold or heat is not a good measure of temperature.

The colder medium has a lower temperature. It's no biggy, anyway; this issue you have brought up. My points regarding measuring in general undermine this part of the argument.

How does stress during birth induce homosexuality? I'm looking for a physiological explanation.

There isn't a physiological explanation for homosexuality - I am proposing a psychosocial explantion.

The natural stress of contractions during birth and the final expulsion of the baby (unanaesthetised) triggers the maternal behaviour in the mother, which deepens the bond between baby and mother. When the baby grows up seeing the mother it loves so deeply suffering at the hands of patriarchy (not necessarily directly from the father, but it will be related to the father as a patriarch), then it reaches the conclusion that any heterosexual relationship in the same patriarchical sociopolitical climate will create the same female victim it witnessed it's mother to be. To play a role in creating such a victim makes the offspring feel like it is undermining it's fundamental idea of what love is (obtained from it's deep bond with it's mother), and so it chooses homosexuality as an answer to satisfying the sexual urge instead.

But I don't underminde measurement - insofar that there is an accurate description of how it is done.

Well you can't claim accuracy for the act of measuring, while not claiming accuracy for the act of cognising - both of them are subjective experiences which can be referenced betwen people. Just because you can't measure concepts doesn't mean they don't exist in both of us - we describe what we mean and agree. When I describe a 'concept' to you, you can't measure it, but we can agree upon the perception behind that label. That is enough of a measurement for such a thing.

Human interference and interpretation is always unreliable, which is why a good researcher will try to rule it out as much as possible.

Agreed; and if any single conception I present doesn't correlate with you, then please feel free to highlight it.

There isn't a physiological explanation for homosexuality - I am proposing a psychosocial explantion.

Ah. I'm afraid that I feel psychosociology to be a bit of a minefield. I'm no Hari Seldon, alas.Still, using my - first-hand - experience, I've been there, and never fallen in love with a man. (From walking through a babe-ridden train station each day, I can only deduct that I'm straight in-and-out.)Might be seeing many things in a different perspective, though, and be a gentler person for it.